Frustration with Food rant

[so lucky]

Well said

 

[Bettacreek]

The problem is that there's more to it than just what we stuff into our mouths. Think about it... Most civilizations way back when on the natural diet were "old" by 20. Of course they were healthy and vibrant into "old age". Even recently, people weren't living for as long. Having disorders no longer cuts us out of the gene pool, where it used to mean death and thus no spread of the genes. I just think it has a LOT more to do than just diet. Of course, diet certainly plays a role, but it's not the entire reason.

 

[FarmerJamie]

When you see a statistic about life expectancy in certain populations being startlingly young, it doesn't mean there weren't elderly people. It means that infant and child mortality was very high, lowering the average number of years that a person in that group lived. If there are ten people, and 4 live to be 100 and 6 die at age 2, the average life expectancy in that group is 41.2 years. Yet no one died at that age.

Read the book. Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. The older people were in their 80's and 90's. Child mortality was extremely low. When someone died early, it was due to accident, not disease, as disease was extremely rare. We are not talking about ALL people, all civilizations, just the ones who enjoyed vibrant health. That is all that matters. Dr. Price knew what unhealthy people were eating, he saw it all around him in this country in the early part of the last century. He spent years and much travel....much of it on foot, by canoe, sled dog....to reach these remote places, untouched by the foods of modern commerce.....sugar, white flour, canned goods, etc. He didn't travel to observe people who were not healthy.

 

[Bettacreek]

The problem is still that it's not necessarily the food. If these people are untouched, then they aren't using modern medicines, modern foods, modern technology, are not around chemicals that many Americans are exposed to, etc, etc. Their entire lives are vastly different than our own. It's comparing apples to oranges and saying "yup, it's definitely the food", when it is more likely a wide variety of other issues. And, not all of those children are dying from accidents. Think about it... If an animal in the wild is not suited to living, it's going to die, much like a child unsuited to living in one of these communities would die. In our world, many of these children who would've died a hundred years ago is now capable of living and even reproducing. We are no longer a species that follows the rule of "survival of the fittest" because of modern medicine and numerous other factors. Thus, we have "bred" into our communities genetics that aren't exactly optimum. I've seen people who've lived their lives VERY naturally, no chemicals, no processed foods, etc, etc and yes, many of them still have major health issues at various ages (though most ARE older in my personal experience). Anyways, this book is basically like saying "well, this specific species of wild animal lives to be about 7 without predation and is healthy all the way up til then, but this same species kept in a laboratory is typically unhealthy by age 5, so, obviously it's the food"... I mean, if this person is running only to healthy villages, then that there says that they're not absorbing the entire picture, because they SHOULD be visiting unhealthy groups as well, to try to find likenesses and differences between the healthy group and the unhealthy group. No, America doesn't count as an unhealthy group, I mean to visit other "untouched" communities that are unhealthy, to get a better, whole picture.

 

[~gd]

There are other life expectancy statists other than whole life But basically they depend on records. Inviduals can be traced thru censes records except for the last 70 years. Some churches only keep records on members and members became full members only when they became adults, The Jewish faith sets the age at 13. Church records often record The ages of the bride and groom and thiere death.

 

[FarmerJamie]

The problem is still that it's not necessarily the food. If these people are untouched, then they aren't using modern medicines, modern foods, modern technology, are not around chemicals that many Americans are exposed to, etc, etc. Their entire lives are vastly different than our own. It's comparing apples to oranges and saying "yup, it's definitely the food", when it is more likely a wide variety of other issues.

I've seen people who've lived their lives VERY naturally, no chemicals, no processed foods, etc, etc and yes, many of them still have major health issues at various ages (though most ARE older in my personal experience)

Thanks, for making the point.

Thus, we have "bred" into our communities genetics that aren't exactly optimum.

Oh yeah, the "I am not fat, I'm big boned" excuse. :/ "My family has a history of diabetes, so I know I'm going to get it, too"....

No, America doesn't count as an unhealthy group, I mean to visit other "untouched" communities that are unhealthy, to get a better, whole picture.

Not following your America comment - we are as unhealthy as they come, as a group demographic. What "untouched" unhealthy communities are you taking about, or are you hypothesizing that he purposely avoided data that would contradict his theories?

 

[Bettacreek]

The problem is still that it's not necessarily the food. If these people are untouched, then they aren't using modern medicines, modern foods, modern technology, are not around chemicals that many Americans are exposed to, etc, etc. Their entire lives are vastly different than our own. It's comparing apples to oranges and saying "yup, it's definitely the food", when it is more likely a wide variety of other issues.

I've seen people who've lived their lives VERY naturally, no chemicals, no processed foods, etc, etc and yes, many of them still have major health issues at various ages (though most ARE older in my personal experience)

Thanks, for making the point.

Thus, we have "bred" into our communities genetics that aren't exactly optimum.

Oh yeah, the "I am not fat, I'm big boned" excuse. :/ "My family has a history of diabetes, so I know I'm going to get it, too"....

No, America doesn't count as an unhealthy group, I mean to visit other "untouched" communities that are unhealthy, to get a better, whole picture.

Not following your America comment - we are as unhealthy as they come, as a group demographic. What "untouched" unhealthy communities are you taking about, or are you hypothesizing that he purposely avoided data that would contradict his theories?

I mean that America doesn't count because it IS unhealthy, but it's not comparable to other "third world"/"untouched" communities. They live totally different from the way we do. You have to compare apples to apples. There's no way you can compare health in America to health in a third world country, because it's just so different.

As far as "fat vs big boned" it's only common sense the genetics play a factor and that we as humans are no longer breeding for "survival of the fittest". I'm not being harsh here, but children who have special needs, etc would've died off faster in a community like that (in FACT, some communities will kill babies that they deem unfit, or leave them in the "bush" to die). Also, explain why some people who've eaten crap food for their entire lives are more healthy than some who eat naturally? Because health isn't based entirely on food, period.

 

[rty007]

I have one very simple questions.

1) Have you read either of the books that FarmerJamie mentioned?

 

[moolie]

I've read both, I own a second-hand copy of Nourishing Traditions, and I've read the online version of Dr. Price's book.

I'll just say that it is interesting to note who the "sponsors" of the Weston A Price Foundation (which has done no follow-up research since Weston Price's investigations in the 1930s) are, just as it is interesting to note the sponsors of any similar university nutrition study or research project.

Also, W A Price was a dentist, not a nutritionist nor a sociologist, in the 1930s. Science has come a LONG way since his time, and he did not have the scientific training or methods available to people today He describes his observations and concludes that it is only diet that has resulted in the differences he sees. He does not account for any other factors in the lives of the people he observed. Sally Fallon and the WAPF conclude, based solely on his work and a few other papers that were panned in their day, that ONE diet is good for everyone, and as far as I can tell Price never concluded that. And I have no idea where she gets some of her recipes from, because traditional foods in my heritage (Eastern European) are not made the way she advocates in her book--so if you are into traditional foods, you should make them the traditional way.

Always always always read books with your eyes wide open, see what else is out there on the subject, and come to your own conclusions--there has yet to be written a truly objective book on any subject known to man.

 

[moolie]

All that said, I do believe that traditional foods have their place in my family's diet--simply because the ones from our family heritage are generally wholesome and tasty, and many are "comfort" foods for us. I do believe in eating food as close to nature as possible, and preparing food in ways so as to derive the most nutrition from them.

Cooked tomatoes make more lycopene available to your system than raw. Soaked grains and legumes are more digestible. Butter and pressed oils are more "natural" than margarine (which I've never liked and won't eat at a restaurant).

But I'm not going to overdo anything in life, and I'm certainly not going to take one person's word for what healthy eating is. I've done my homework and I feel perfectly fine feeding my family the way I do.